This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

Originally Posted by cpwill

our defense budget hit a postwar high of 14.2% of GDP in 1953 during the Korean War. At the height of Vietnam in 1968, it was 9.5%, and it was 6.8% in 1986 at the height of the Reagan buildup. In 2000, military funding reached the lowest point on 3.0%. Today, 10 years into the Global War on Terror, we are spending 4.7% of GDP on defense.

First, I'd like to see where the American Thinker got its numbers since that's significantly different than the numbers I saw. Not saying its wrong, I'd just generally like to see where information is sourced from magazines that have definitive leans (be it conservative or liberal). I'd say the same thing from something posted on the Huffington Post.

Second, even if we assume their numbers are correct (and I do appreciate you providing some, don't get me wrong), it still doesn't show that apstd's comment was factually correct as 4.7 is hardly half of 1986's totals, which were higher than 1990's totals, which would be the start of his "Two decades" comment. What it was in 1953 is irrelevant to his comment about over the past "two decades".

you are mistaking "money" for "combat power".

No, I'm equating money given to our armed forces as the measure for "our armed forces". Again, he did not state "Our armed forces combat power". He stated our armed forces...Period. If I say the Washington Redskins have good talent, that'd be entirely different and with a different answer then if I said The washington Redskins starting secondary has good talent. Stating "our armed forces" has been cut is different then saying the "combat power of our armed forces" or "the active duty members of our armed forces" have been cut. One is a broadscale comment, the other is identifying a specific. It was not until his second post on the matter that he attempted to go itn othe specific.

remember that DOD provides healthcare to millions of people; and it has eaten those increased costs as they have skyrocketed.

This is true, however you'd this this would be somewhat offset by the reduced number of troops with more focus on contractors and equipment/technology during that same time span.

also, during that time period, congress mandated continuous pay raises for military personnel in order to bring their paychecks closer to their civilian equivalents. that was a welcome change, but that money did have to come out of the DOD budget. in addition, the wars came with their own dramatically increased costs that did not represent any kind of actual military buildup.

The cost of the wars themselves however could also be reason for some of the levels early in the decade as opposed to now. Additionally, congress didn't magically mandate that out of the goodness of their heart, that decision was pushed by pro-military lobby groups. Much like conservatives have issues with upping and upping the minimum wage costing jobs, you can't demand that the military get paid more, then complain that we're not just throwing tons more money at them to keep people from losing jobs.

But, once again, this all goes back to the fact that his original comment talked about cutting the armed forces in general, not any specific aspect of it.

to put it in the terms that he was discussing (actual ability to project force): in 1990, the Army had 18 Divisions. Now it has 10. The Navy had 600 ships. Now they have 280, making our current fleet the smallest it has been since WWI; and most of those are older, many have cracks running up and down the lengths of their hulls. The number of tactical Air Wings that the Air Force can muster has fallen from 37 to 20 (and that with fewer planes per wing), and (again) many of the planes are older. The new top air craft coming to replace them (the F-22) has been cut. The useful life of the equipment from the Reagan Buildup is ending, and we have apparently decided not to purchase replacements.

All of which is definitely a problem. However, as a conservative...and based on conservative principles...the notion that the solution to that problem is throw more money at it is preposterous. The military is as much a beuracracy and a part of government as anything else. There are political actions, not strategic actions, that are definitely taking place with it. There is definite, waste, redundency, and misuse going on. There are undoubtably sacred cows and ineffecient things that are antiquated and unneeded. And it would appear based on everything you're saying there are some serious issues regarding what should be important and what is being focused upon.

In any other part of government, or even private business, a conservative would rail against the notion of just throw money at it and fix it. Rail against the notion that there isn't possible ways to significantly cut while not hindering but actually improving a bad situation. Would balk at the notion that something in government couldn't likely sustain a 1/3rd cut over a 10 year period. Find me one other part of government where most conservatives based on conservative principles would say that. And yet somehow...its impossible for the military to do that? Its a sacred cow to some who have taken a short span of conservative ideological times and applied that as a broad and over arching conservative principle that for some reason overrules all others while ignoring the context, reasons, and theory behind why it happened when it happened.

Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

Originally Posted by Catawba

By ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we would cut $150 billion dollars a year in spending. By also cutting military spending by 50% we would save another $350 billion a year. That's a half trillion dollars annually in deficit reduction. And we would still be spending more on military than any other country on the planet.

First, the budget for military in 2010 (I'll go off what was completed rather than 2011 as it has hard numbers) was roughly $663 billion. Lets say you're 150 billion was correct. That would mean it'd be cut to $513 billion. Then lets cut that in half, which would be roughly $256 billion, not $350 billion that'd be saving. All told it'd be just shy of half a trillion, sitting around $406 billion. If we used the numbers you said rather than the percentages, meaning after the $150 from the top cut it by $350 billion, we'd actually be looking at $163 billion in defense spending. Which would be a defacto 75% cut to defense and would save the half a trillion you stated. I'm going to go with the percentages, but you can still compare if you want.

Now similarly, if we reformed entitlement spending to cut it by just 33%, almost half of the defacto 62% decrease you're proposing to defense spending, we'd save more than a half a trillion a year...specifically $663 billion.

Cut entitlements by 33%, save roughly $650 billion. Cut defense spending by almost double that at 62% and you save almost a quarter of a trillion less. Cut defense spending by 3/4ths as your numbers would do, and you'd still be $150 billion less.

Here's the big rub though.

Cut BOTH by 1/3rd of current numbers and we'd save almost $900 billion a year. That's nearly a TRILLION a year just from those two types of monetary streams. It would still keep both making up 2/3rds of the government spending (as opposed to 3/4ths currently). It would keep the military right around the pre-war spending levels of 1998-2001 at roughly 3.5% of GDP.

Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

Originally Posted by apdst

Our armed forces have been cut in half over the past two decades. If we decrease it by another third, what will be left?

All these cuts will cost lives.

I dont disagree...but thats only because of how the leadership applies cuts. They will continue the BS beauracracy, the defense contractor shell games which ensure senior leadership folks have lobbying and BoD jobs when they retire. There is absolutely no reason to cut readiness, manpower, and troop assets. That doesnt mean that they wont.

Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

Originally Posted by Risky Thicket

Not if we pull our ass out of the Middle East.

That is about it. I would like to save the money by ending wars and occupations rather than cutting research on weapons systems that keeps us ahead curve. We need to have a ready force to respond when needed but unless the rest of the world wants to pay us to be their standing army then we can't go on like we have in the past.

Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

Originally Posted by SheWolf

when that war comes, then we spend money like we are in a war... simple as that

Exactly.

In all these years - considering the amount of money that the Dod et al have had to spend - they've done a horrid job and let numerous things slide that should have been maintained and continually paid for: like adequate supplies for troops, upgrade and basic maintenance for various hospitals and med centers like Walter Reed . . .and so on.

All this money: a lot of it has been spent on piles of crap.

A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.

Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

Originally Posted by apdst

What about the next war that comes along?...and yes...there will be another one. It would be idiotic not to mention very dangerous to assume that there won't be.

There hasn't been a war that was actually a threat to the people of the United States since 1945. The Cold War was a pissing contest between idiots who couldn't put aside their own arrogance to realize that peace is not only possible, but easy. Al Qaeda is a joke and half of their power right now comes from how pissed Middle Easterners are at us for invading their countries and our abusive foreign policy. That next war won't come if we don't start it.